Seventh-generation decision making
Sources:
Kznarick, Roman. The Good Ancestor: A Radical Prescription for Long-term thinking, pages 15, 86-90
https://www.pbs.org/warrior/content/timeline/opendoor/roleOfChief.html
Peer Review Essay 2
How is the essay structured, and does it follow assignment guidelines? (If not, explain why and give suggestions for revision)
Camille did an excellent job structuring the assignment in an easily read and understood manner.
Is the summary complete and accurate? If not, please make suggestions.
Camille did a great job at giving details, author thoughts, and examples. Adequate information is provided. Krznaric’s voice is well represented, as is that of the essay writer. The paragraphs are well-tied together, and there is an excellent flow.
Does the writer handle the source ethically? (check to ensure that paraphrases are not unacceptably close to the original wording; is Works Cited included?)
The material was handled exceptionally well and ethically. It was well written in the writer’s own words.
Are paragraphs focused, well-developed, and coherent? (Is there one clear main idea per paragraph? Identify any sections that need revision for focus or coherence.)
This essay was written in a focused, well-developed, and coherent manner.
Is the response substantive? (Does the writer make interesting, thought-provoking points or connections?)
Overall, well done. This response is thought-provoking, engaging, and well-connected. It gives the reader a sense of precisely what Kznarick’s sixth chapter is about. If I were to provide any suggestions, it might be to see if you can trim down the response to make it more concise, as it is slightly lengthy. The last two paragraphs are where I might consider doing that.
Krzanaric starts Chapter 7: Holistic Forecasting: Long-term Pathways for Civilization by referencing what he calls “The World’s first professional forecasters.” (pg 116, paragraph 1) He states that they were likely to have been Ancient Egyptian priests who gathered where the three rivers in Egypt met to predict the annual flood’s size. He notes the three possible outcomes depend on which river was seen predominately where they met. He further explains that no one knows how accurately these priests could forecast the floods. He uses this as an example to show a pattern in human society. We look for people we deem knowledgeable beyond ourselves to predict what will happen in the future. He provides examples of astrologers, shamans, prophets, oracles, etc.
On page 117, paragraph three, he points out the main subject of this chapter when he states, “This chapter presents what I call ‘holistic forecasting as the fifth of six key tools for long-term thinking.” Krznaric goes on to explain the origin of prediction was used to forecast shorter periods, as in a season. In contrast, we are now trying to predict what could happen generations from now based on our actions.
Next, he talks about “The Rise of Networked Uncertainty.” The author explains that this has always been an issue in predicting outcomes in the future, mainly when we try to forecast more extended periods. The further we try to expand our view into the future, the more possibilities there are for outcomes. Krznaric talks about “black swan” events, things that the experts say they could’ve expected in hindsight, such as the attacks on 9/11 and the rise of Google. He speaks about Artificial Intelligence, bioweapons, cybercrime, genetically engineered diseases, growing job insecurity, the volatile nature of the financial marketplace, accelerated pace of technological advancements being a hindrance to predicting future outcomes because the scenery is changing almost minute-by-minute.
Krznaric believes that we have entered a time where there is very little ability to predict the future; however, there are patterns that we can observe throughout history that may help us to a degree. He even goes so far as to say that long-term forecasting is a lost cause and asks, “why not just accept uncertainty, put all our plans on the back burner, and simply deal with the future when it happens?” (page 119, paragraph 2) He answered, “Because there are patterns in history if only we know where to look for them.” (page 119, paragraph 2)
As previously mentioned, the patterns are broken down and explained further in the coming pages. The Wisdom of the S-Curve, Jonas Salk’s S-Curve, Scenario Planning, and the Three Pathways of Human Civilization are what he goes on to explain further in detail.
First, The Wisdom of the S-Curve, or the Sigmoid Curve, is described as a pattern humans have had since the beginning of time. It talks about something starting, at which point it takes off, and the Curve climbs upward. Then there is a plateau where things are no longer growing or moving upward, but they are not deteriorating downward either. Eventually, an event happens, Civilization degenerates, and things go downward. Experts describe this as a continuous motion without a break in the pattern.
Secondly, Jonas Salk’s S-Curve is based on the same principle; however, he splits the S-Curve into two sections. The first section, A, is where the human race consumes beyond its means, and the second section, B, is where it lives within its means and seeks balance. He calls section A Short-range thinking and section B, Long-range thinking. The S-Curves challenge that growth is continuous and indefinite. Some use this tool to provide an overzealous optimistic view of what the future holds, stating that if we continue to advance in all matters, our technology will be able to solve future problems while ignoring things such as global warming and extinction.
Thirdly, Scenario Planning is where “experts” devise possible scenarios that can happen in the future and predict the outcomes based on those scenarios. In doing this, we can see the error or benefit of specific actions and take steps to mitigate our choices’ effects on future generations. This tool is valuable because it does not pigeonhole you into one particular outcome but helps you see the vast possibilities. However, it does lead the way to a somewhat cold method of thinking because, in this method, experts consider what an acceptable amount of human lives are lost before the surviving generations would feel pessimistic about surviving. This is most commonly used in the corporate world to predict how businesses can maintain stability in the changing climate. This particular method of thinking has made the human population concerned about how our actions will affect future generations. It is the basis of Climate change arguments, Green Energies, and all the forward-thinking we are beginning to do as a human race.
Lastly, the Three Pathways of Human Civilization gives us the paths that Civilization can take. We can Breakdown or destroy ourselves; Reform, essentially continue in the same way to prolong our existence but inevitably Breakdown at a later date; or we can Transform and make lasting changes that will help humankind and our planet remain intact. Each pattern follows a similar path to the S-Curve and predicts the different outcomes for Civilization. Krznarick is asking us throughout his book to consider the pathway of Transformation because it represents a significant shift in our methodology as humans. It requires us to think about future generations, the effects our actions have on them, and what we can do differently now to help sustain those in the future.
Krznaric asserts that all three of these pathways will likely co-exist simultaneously because there are those in the world who will have short-term thinking, only caring about what they can get now, some that will keep everything status quo, and still others who will seek to transform the way they do things to help us now and those in the future. The success or failure of Civilization depends on how long we wait to go from short-term gains to thinking about what the long-term gains will be for ourselves and the generations that follow. The longer we wait to make the switch, the more detriments and more complicated it will be, thus making our gains and the gains of future generations slower to see results.
What could we do if given a chance to make a substantial difference in the world now and in the future? Many of us and our youth today ponder this question and actively take a stand in pursuing Intergenerational Justice. Intergenerational Justice is a form of Distributive Justice where present generations are obligated to future generations, with policies that do not create benefits just for themselves and do not impose costs on those who will live in the future.
In the book The Good Ancestor: A Radical Prescription for Long-term Thinking, Author Roman Krznaric asserts, “We are faced with one of the most urgent social questions of the twenty-first century: what obligation and responsibility do we have to the generations who will succeed us?” (Pg 71, paragraph 1) The basis of Intergenerational Justice is trying to invoke the current generation to think about the possible effects of their actions on future generations. The principal fact is that we must strike an equitable balance between our current generation and those that come after us. We must represent future citizens’ interests and welfare in our recent decisions and policies. A collective responsibility to effect changes in legislation and governing rules now will significantly impact the ability to sustain life in the future.
Krznaric asks, “If you were given $100 million and asked to allocate it for the welfare of humankind, how would you do it?” (Pg 77, paragraph 3) Many of today’s youth are actively seeking to answer such a question. Greta Thunberg is one such youth. She is a Swedish activist known for challenging large corporations to reduce their carbon footprint. At age fifteen, she spoke at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2018. She is known for her blunt and straightforward manner of speaking. She is just one example of Intergenerational Justice. She is responsible for youth worldwide protesting and effectively asking for the leadership in place now to think about her generation and the generations that follow. Such things as limiting our dependency on fossil fuels could reverse some of the effects that global warming has caused. Finding newer, more eco-friendly, sustainable energy sources or improving the sources we already have would vastly improve the quality of life in our current generations and those that follow. Continuing to develop hydro-energy would be necessary because most of the Earth’s surface is water, thus making it a valuable energy source. Improvements made to solar power would be an excellent investment considering the sun, an ever-present energy source.
How can we help today’s youth? What can we affect in legislation or by our actions starting now? Regular discussions with our children about the political and actual climate of the Earth are essential. Teaching our children to discern and form an educated opinion or viewpoint on these matters will help ensure they continue to make necessary changes. Teaching our children that their voice matters is the best thing we can give them because it will allow them to speak up for what they want and believe. Many of us look at the question posed by Krznaric on how we would invest $100 million and think, “that is not much money when thinking on a global scale.” Still, others may ponder and devise ways to effect real change in the world—efforts made in several areas. Investing in global education and the welfare of children is one such area. Educated children produce educated generations to follow. The hunger crisis all over the world is also of concern because, with proper food and nutrition, one can expect generations to be able to provide something substantial or long-lasting. Investing in the teaching of agriculture would be a method to improve this crisis because it would teach citizens how to grow and sustain a natural food source now and through future generations. Finding a way to improve the healthcare system, explicitly emphasizing mental health, would be a fantastic investment. People are more productive and live happier when they feel better about themselves and the world. Making mental health a priority instead of sweeping our feelings under the rug so-to-speak would benefit us and those who come after us, as we would be better versions of ourselves, thus raising the quality of future generations.
Further investing in such things as planting trees, rebuilding the rainforest, and animal welfare would also ensure that we are doing our best to sustain our ecosystem and ensure it is long-lasting. Making more of our daily usage items biodegradable would drastically improve our carbon footprint. Switching from paper products and using a plant such as bamboo, which multiplies and at a faster rate than trees, for things like paper towels, toilet paper, and diapers, we could start to impact the waste in our landfills that will inevitably pollute our groundwater. Allocating some of the money to be put aside for the next four generations to use as they see fit in their current state of affairs, we would ensure that the money could have an even more significant impact in the future because those who have already benefited from the changes listed above would then effectively give the same gift given to them.
Krznaric broke down Intergenerational Justice into four moral motives: The Arrow, The Scale, The Blindfold, and The Baton. The Arrow essentially states that we must treat people of equal worth, regardless of when they are born. People living do not have any more value than a person born a century from now. The Scales states that we weigh the well-being of those alive today against those not yet born. Krznaric noted a deficit in this thinking: “If the average birth rate of the twenty-first century is maintained for the next 50,000 years, around 6.75 trillion human beings will be born. That is 877 times more people than the 7.7 billion alive today.” (Pg 82, paragraph 1) If using this methodology, we would have to consider the weight of future generations far surpassing our importance, given the statistical numbers presented here. The Blindfold asks us to imagine the world we want to inherit without knowing the era and time we would be born. The Baton asserts the basic principle of the “Golden Rule,” which asks us to treat future generations how we would want to be treated by past generations.
Each of these principles, The Arrow, The Scale, The Blindfold, and The Baton, have a place in how we might help future generations to some degree. Treating people equally, as The Arrow suggests, would help form a connection between generations now and those to come. It would force us to consider them in the present, not the future tense, thus making them a vital part of our decision-making. Though The Scales is not the best possible solution to help us affect change for future generations, it does provide us with a certain amount of mathematical certainty of how large our future generations will be, thus invoking their importance in today’s decisions as their number far surpasses our own. The Blindfold forces us to see ourselves in the future generation and causes us to be concerned with what we want to be present when we are born. The Baton causes us to empathize with future generations and think about how we have felt about our treatment of the past generation. In doing so, we require one another to think about how we would have wanted them to treat us, ensuring we avoid making the same mistakes.
Krznaric also asks us to consider the fundamental principle that tribal nations and indigenous people live by, “Seventh Generation Thinking,” which is your actions and how they would affect seven generations from now. This form of thinking is essentially the backbone of Intergenerational Justice as it asks us to live within our limits. Doing so demonstrates respect and love for the Earth, our children, and the many generations to follow. It causes us to think of the Earth as Mother Earth, a living entity just as we are, which we must work to preserve and keep intact to sustain our planet and life itself. Krznaric believes that by living by these principles, we would create a change in the history of democracy that would be equal to or greater than that of the enfranchisement of women, which took place in the early twentieth century.
Our generation and children are among the first to ponder and actively affect change when considering what we would do if given a chance to make a substantial difference in the world now and for future generations. We feel a great responsibility to future generations in answering Mr. Krznaric’s question, asking us what obligation we have to future generations. We have implemented many earlier suggestions and continue to fine-tune and develop daily. We are environmentally aware of reducing, reusing, and recycling. We teach our children the importance of caring for our planet and themselves. We are giving a voice to both our generation and future generations as we actively make legislation and changes in our present time. We should continue this current path as citizens worldwide; in doing so, we will ensure the existence of the generations to come is better than what we have today, which is the ultimate goal- leaving our planet in a better condition for those that follow. In that case, we can effect real change and put the term Intergenerational Justice at the forefront of our thinking and how we actively live our lives.
Sources:
In The Good Ancestor: A Radical Prescription for Long-term Thinking, Roman Krznaric explores the philosophy of Intergenerational Justice, which is a form of distributive justice, where present generations hold an obligation toward future generations, policies that do not create benefits just for themselves and do not impose costs on those who will live in the future.
Krznaric asserts, “We are now faced with one of the most urgent social questions of the twenty-first century: what obligation and responsibility do we have to the generations who will succeed us?” (Pg 71, paragraph 1) The basis of Intergenerational Justice is trying to invoke the current generation to think about the possible effects of their actions on future generations. The principal fact is that we must strike an equitable balance between our current generation and those that come after us. We must represent future citizens’ interests and welfare in our recent decisions and policies. A collective responsibility to effect changes in legislation and governing rules now will significantly impact the ability to sustain life in the future.
Krznaric broke down Intergenerational Justice into four moral motives: The Arrow, The Scale, The Blindfold, and The Baton. The Arrow essentially states that we must treat people of equal worth, regardless of when they are born. People living do not have any more value than a person born a century from now. The Scales states The Scales states that we weigh the well-being of those alive today against those not yet born. Krznaric noted a deficit in this thinking when he said, “If the average birth rate of the twenty-first century is maintained for the next 50,000 years, around 6.75 trillion human beings will be born. That is 877 times more people than the 7.7 billion alive today.” (Pg 82, paragraph 1) If using this methodology, we would have to consider the weight of future generations far surpassing our importance, given the statistical numbers presented here. The Blindfold asks us to imagine the world we want to inherit without knowing the era and time we would be born. The Baton asserts the basic principle of the “Golden Rule,” which asks us to treat future generations how we would want to be treated by past generations.
Krznaric also asks us to consider the fundamental principle that tribal nations and indigenous people live by, “Seventh Generation Thinking,” which is your actions and how they would affect seven generations from now. This form of thinking is essentially the backbone of Intergeneration Justice as it asks us to live within our limits. Doing so demonstrates respect and love for the Earth, our children, and the many generations to follow. It causes us to think of the Earth as Mother Earth, a living entity just as we are, which we must work to preserve and keep intact to sustain our planet and life itself. Krznaric believes that by living by these principles, we would create a change in the history of democracy that would be equal to or greater than that of the enfranchisement of women, which took place in the early twentieth century.